Bristol AUT votes

by Chris Bertram on May 18, 2005

The AUT boycott was put before our local association today (for the motion I co-sponsored see “here”:https://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/09/questions-and-answers-re-the-aut-boycott/ — and scroll down). The debate was passionate but respectful. Everyone on both sides agreed that the AUT had botched things procedurally. The pro-boycott lobby didn’t address the details of the Haifa or Bar-Ilan cases at all but made a generic anti-Israel case centred around an analogy with apartheid. In the end the vote was decisive, a pro-boycott amendment was defeated by 41 votes to 18 and my anti-boycott motion passed by 40 votes to 16. Somewhat disappointingly, a number of people then left and a vote was taken that effectively commits the Bristol delegation to splitting their vote to reflect the proportions of opinion (rather than swinging all our votes at Council against the boycott). This adds Bristol to the list of associations that opposed the boycott.

{ 73 comments }

1

Michael Otsuka 05.18.05 at 11:48 am

University College London’s local association of the AUT also had a meeting today. We voted by a large majority to instruct our representatives to vote to repeal the boycotts against Haifa and Bar Ilan at next week’s special Council meeting.

2

Luc 05.18.05 at 12:01 pm

You’ve gotta love politics to understand this.

“the AUT had botched things procedurally”

And from the motion

“(5) to deplore the fact that AUT Council made such a decision on the basis of a perfunctory and one-sided debate.”

But now a decision in this local association has been taken by less than 60 people out of a membership of about 500 or more, if I have the numbers right.

And they are bound to ignore the result of the discussion at the special meeting according to the motion.

“(4) To take no measures locally to implement the current national policy on this matter.”

What point has the central discussion when most representatives already have committed themselves to vote one way or the other, and when the result will be ignored?

In what way is the current procedure any better than the previous one?

Only the result will be different. This clearly was again a one issue campaign, and the result is again decided by a minority. Not much different than the previous procedure.

But that’s politics.

3

abb1 05.18.05 at 1:32 pm

The pro-boycott lobby didn’t address the details of the Haifa or Bar-Ilan cases at all but made a generic anti-Israel case centred around an analogy with apartheid.

And in your motion you write:

…To single out Israel in this manner, whilst continuing to maintain relations with universities in such countries as China and Russia, is a sign of an unwarranted selectivity.

Do you reject the analogy with apartheid or not?

It appears now, based on these two posts, that you don’t reject the analogy and you’re implying that China and Russia practice apartheid too. If so, are you for boycotting China and Russia along with Israel to avoid selectivity?

4

Chris 05.18.05 at 2:30 pm

abb1, I’m guessing that logic isn’t your strong point.

5

abb1 05.18.05 at 4:00 pm

Why, I think it is. You seem to be piling various anti-boycott arguments without much concern for consistency: Israeli academincs are leftists, China and Russia not included, only generic anti-Israel case presented; and even the Jewish members who might identify themselves with Israel, which is, of course, not an anti-boycott argument by any stretch of imagination.

You may want to pick the best argument you have and stick with it. It’s probably the ‘many of whom have been among the most vocal members of their society in opposing their government’s policies.’ argument. And you may want to provide some evidence to make it a little stronger.

The rest seems to be quite flimsy:
– that only two universities are selected is not an argument against the boycott, one could use this fact to argue for a wider boycott.

– that China and Russia are not included in the boycott – well, even if one agrees with you that Russian and Chinese situations are comparable (and I certainly disagree) – this argument has the same flaw. It says nothing about the merits of the Israeli boycott. Why don’t you demand that Russia and China are boycotted too?

– the politics of the region are complex? Ain’t it the truth. Duh. How is this an argument against the boycott?

Where’s my logic being not strong here?

6

Hektor Bim 05.18.05 at 4:15 pm

Abb1,

I’m not sure I understand your complaint about China and Russia. Russia is currently involved in a campaign in Chechnya that I would regard as close to genocidal, with 100,000 dead out of a population of 1 million or so that is ongoing. Do you believe that the Israeli policies of military occupation are worse than Russian actions in Chechnya? Could you explain why?

7

Noah 05.18.05 at 6:51 pm

“Russia is currently involved in a campaign in Chechnya that I would regard as close to genocidal, with 100,000 dead out of a population of 1 million or so that is ongoing.”

Hector, re. Russia’s brutal policies toward Chechnya. Could you post a link, as to Russia’s CURRENT actions there? Thanks.

8

Hektor Bim 05.18.05 at 8:38 pm

Sure Noah,

Here’s a link from 2002 on Chechen disappearances:
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/04/chechnya041502.htm

Here’s a link from 2001:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/05/15/russia119.htm

Here’s a link from Medicins sans Frontieres that says that 15% of the pre-war population is gone:
http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=13&issue_id=583&article_id=4281

Here’s a link to the death toll in Chechnya:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat5.htm

Here’s one about death squads from 2003:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7306-3.cfm

Here’s a report from Human Rights Watch – apparently 1700 people were “disappeared” last year alone: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/10/russia10298.htm

This is the second time you’ve asked me for links, and the second time I’ve been able to post them after fooling around with Google for five minutes. Why exactly do you keep asking me to supply links to things you perfectly easily can find on the web yourself?

9

Mill 05.18.05 at 9:27 pm

“Somewhat disappointingly, a number of people then left and a vote was taken that effectively commits the Bristol delegation to splitting their vote to reflect the proportions of opinion (rather than swinging all our votes at Council against the boycott). This adds Bristol to the list of associations that opposed the boycott.”

Well, it adds you to the list of associations that partly oppose it, anyway.

10

abb1 05.19.05 at 2:03 am

Hi Hektor,
I don’t want to argue Chechnya here. All I’m saying is that the ‘selectivity’ argument is not an argument against the merits of the boycott.

The way I see it, it’s simply a smear; it’s a way to question the motives of those professors who voted for the boycott, that’s all.

11

Sue D'Onym 05.19.05 at 4:01 am

Pulling a fast one to get delegates to vote proportionally _after_ the motions have been framed and debated sounds pretty dubious to me. So much for an end to botched procedures.

12

lth 05.19.05 at 4:31 am

… but at the same time, surely PR better reflects the composition of the local membership, rather than bloc voting?

13

Robin Green 05.19.05 at 6:20 am

Agreed. Bloc voting is evil.

14

Russkie 05.19.05 at 6:53 am

>Agreed. Bloc voting is evil.

Then why have a vote at all? Just let any AUT member who wishes to boycott (or not boycott) any particular person to do so! Problem solved.

15

JR 05.19.05 at 7:50 am

Are the people on this thread academics? If you are, you have a very tenuous grasp on the special status you’ve got due to academic freedom. Academic freedom is not a right. It’s a privilege that society grants you in order to benefit society at large by the creation and dissemination of knowledge. Outside your area of expertise, your academic freedom is of no value to the public at large, and there is no reason for the public to honor it.

A translator of Chinese or a specialist mediaeval diplomacy has no expertise in modern middle East politics. Why should the public, which funds your salaries and your universities, allow such people to use their positions to further their own personal political agendas?

Imagine if the AUT took a vote that committed its members to boycott colleagues who had voted Tory. What do you think the public would say about that?

No other group of employees – union or not – would ever consider discriminating against potential co-workers on the basis of nationality or political belief. That facts that academics have done so shows that they completely misunderstand their role in society and have come to view academic freedom as a personal right, not as a public trust.

Academic freedom is far more fragile than the AUT seems to understand. The boycott is a self-inflicted injury that jeopardizes the independence of all scholars everywhere.

16

Hektor Bim 05.19.05 at 8:16 am

The problem, abb1, is that the boycott motion is inherently selective. If we want to boycott countries that severely abuse human rights, we need to put about 40 countries on the list, including places like Sudan, Burma, Russia, China, etc. But no one is proposing that – the proposal is to get one specific country, which is also, by far, not the worst offender.

I can see boycotting countries based on their use of genocide, because it is uniquely pernicious, but then Israel doesn’t come close to making the list.

So I can’t see the point of this particular boycott (leaving aside the principle of academic exchange of ideas, which I also support), unless one happens to have a strange fixation with the Israel/Palestine issue in particular. Which is exactly what I suspect you and the originators of this boycott of having.

17

Hektor Bim 05.19.05 at 8:21 am

Another thing,

Why is my post above, with copious links for Noah from Human Rights Watch and other places on the situation in Chechnya, still “awaiting moderation”?

18

abb1 05.19.05 at 8:51 am

Hektor,
an organized boycott like this is not an act of punishment, it’s merely a tool for applying pressure on a particular government to force it to change policies.

If you argee with this, then what’s the significance of Russia and China and all the rest of your 40 countries? I don’t see any.

And if this boycott is indeed a result of ‘strange fixation with the Israel/Palestine issue’ (and thank you, BTW, for confirming my suggestion that this ‘selectivity’ thing is nothing but a smear), then, if you think it will or may produce positive changes in Israeli policies, then you should support it too. And those Jewish members who identify with Israel should support it too, because they probably want better policies more than anyone.

The only valid kind of argument against this boycott, IMO, would be arguing that the boycott is counterproductive. I can see that reasonable people may hold this view, but unfortunartely I don’t see Chris Bertram here focusing on making this case.

19

Russkie 05.19.05 at 9:01 am

The only valid kind of argument against this boycott, IMO, would be arguing that the boycott is counterproductive.

You’re also forgetting the argument that a) Israel is doing its best to make the occupation as humane as possible, b) the Oslo process was a serious attempt at compromise that was torpedoed by Arafat and other Palestinian maximalists who seek to eliminate Israel from the map c) BBC and other media are relentlessly unfair – eg. they are largely ignoring the missiles that Hamas is currently firing at the settlements that are to be evacuated as part of the disengagement.

20

abb1 05.19.05 at 10:13 am

Russkie, the basic assumption here is that the Israeli government is doing some hideous things. If you disagree with that, then, obviously, you are against the boycott just because there’s no reason for it.

That is, apparently, Eszter’s POV as far as I can tell, but it’s not what Chris is saying, or, at least, it’s not apparent from what he wrote so far.

21

Chris 05.19.05 at 10:28 am

There’s much that I could say, abb1, but I’ll just mention one thing to demonstrate that you don’t read properly or carefully.

You write

bq. The only valid kind of argument against this boycott, IMO, would be arguing that the boycott is counterproductive. I can see that reasonable people may hold this view, but unfortunartely I don’t see Chris Bertram here focusing on making this case.

I disagree that this is the “only valid kind of argument”. But contrary to what you write I did make the argument that the boycott is counterproductive in the original motion which I quoted:

bq. Moreover, it is perverse and counterproductive for British academics to seek to isolate members of the Israeli academic community, many of whom have been among the most vocal members of their society in opposing their government’s policies.

22

Hektor Bim 05.19.05 at 10:28 am

A tool for applying pressure is an act of punishment. You want to punish the government until it changes its policies to ones you like. Don’t mince your words.

What do you mean, “a smear”? I have no idea where your fascination with Israel/Palestine comes from – it may arise from completely noble reasons, but it nonetheless appears to be motivated out of a specific fascination, not any general commitment to human rights, since far greater human rights abuses seem to never impinge on your consciousness.

There is a larger point here as well. Excessive hypocrisy is corrosive. I knew a Greek Cypriot who was adamantly opposed to the Kosovo war. Although he accepted the humanitarian justification, he nevertheless opposed it because he believed the US could not act honorably in such a situation after its actions in Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus during the cold war. So here’s someone who decided to oppose something solely because of hypocrisy. You see this all over the place – look at democracy organizers in Egypt who won’t accept Western help because they believe it is inherently tainted.

Frankly, the more hypocritical you appear, the less people will support you. So I would encourage you to be sensitive to it, as opposed to just dismissing it as a “smear”.

Silencing dissent, running roughshod over academic freedom, etc. It’s all ok as long as it is for the cause. I’m never going to agree with you on this.

23

abb1 05.19.05 at 10:41 am

Chris, I acknowledged that this is your best argument, see #5. It could use some evidence, though.

Hektor, I disagree that tool for applying pressure is an act of punishment. Boycott is a pretty blunt and radical tool, so it may look like a punishment, but I don’t think they do it with the intent to punish, they do it with the intent to provide an incentive.

24

Eve Garrard 05.19.05 at 11:04 am

Many pro-boycotters, both here and elsewhere, meet the selectivity objection to the boycott with complaints of a smear. But if they’re concerned about being smeared, then the solution is straightforward. All they have to do is provide an adequate justification for selecting Israel, out of all the countries in the world (many of which are far worse violaters of human rights) for punishment (or ‘incentive’, as some prefer to pronounce it). If the selectivity can be justified, then it’s no longer objectionable. All we need is a justification for boycotting Israel while remaining inactive towards Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Zimbabwe, Burma, Libya, Iran ……

25

Mill 05.19.05 at 11:15 am

Thanks, abb1, I understand now. The boycott isn’t an expression of anti-semitism — it’s simply a way to help those backwards semites see the error of their ways. Thank God there will always be well-off, far-off white people to beat savagely at complex international situations with blunt diplomatic instruments! Why, it’s like a sort of colonialism, only not evil!

Your touching faith that the people backing the boycott do not have “the intent to punish” has also moved me greatly. Perhaps we should all follow your example and apply this “assume that people have the best conceivable intentions, even when they are doing destructive, idiotic things” philosophy to other folks, like, ooh, George W. Bush! All he wants to do is democratize! It’s an _incentive_!

26

abb1 05.19.05 at 11:33 am

Well, Eve, why do you think this is all about violations of human rights? This is only one aspect, there are many other elements, like 38 years of illegal military occupation and so on.

And, again, if you think the boycott may help Israel – why would you be against it? If you don’t, you should explain why. That’s all there is to it.

Mill, if you could demonstrate that this is a ‘destructive, idiotic thing’, that would be sufficient for me to oppose it. That is exactly what I’ve been saying. But your starting with accusation of anti-semitism is not very promising.

27

P ONeill 05.19.05 at 12:02 pm

For the benefit of CT’s Republic of Ireland contingent in particular, it’s worth noting that this same debate may be getting going in the Republic because someone has fired an opening salvo in the letters pages of the Irish Times, where many of the relevant persons will see it. Here’s the letter in full:

Madam, – In a controversial debate that has received little attention over here, the UK Association of University Teachers (AUT) on April 22nd passed a motion at a national AUT council meeting to boycott both Haifa and Bar iLan universities.

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem is also a potential target.

The background to the AUT decision is a farrago of ideological analyses and propaganda relating to the participation of certain Israeli institutions in the management of the Palestinian issue. In reality Israel, despite its flaws, is the only reasonably functioning democracy in a region dominated by the worst forms of feminist, political and theocratic political repression.

Due to an embedded anti-Semitism in European intellectual culture, it is nearly impossible to raise rational arguments in defence of Israel.

If one recalls the deeply offensive Punch caricatures of “the Oirish” and the crude blanket generalisations of the Irish in Britain as potential terrorists over the past 30 years, then one can grasp some minute insight into the portrayal of Israel as replete with people of one religious and one political persuasion bent on the creation of a greater Judaea-Sumeria. Of course, the fact that political life may be less homogenous than that is sometimes inconvenient to acknowledge in cultures tuned to resonate to anti-Semitism.

It is a fact that there are political movements in Israel that profoundly object to the political privations imposed on the Palestinian population.

Of course, much of the material misery of the same population could be ameliorated if the Arab “brothers” dug deep enough into their oil wealth, as has the global Jewish Diaspora. In the absence of this, we are treated to tantrums by the AUT.

If the same boycott logic had been applied to Irish colleges because of individual staff identification with republicanism, would we have progressed to the Belfast Agreement more slowly – if at all? Would the Republic be trumpeting its Celtic Tiger legacy?

The end of dialogue marks the end of civility. Shame on the AUT for supporting the ending of intellectual commerce with a nation that has suffered so much indignity historically. – Yours, etc,

JOHN HARPUR,
Vice-President for Public Relations,
Irish Federation of University Teachers,
Merrion Square,
Dublin 2.

28

Eve Garrard 05.19.05 at 12:07 pm

There are several good arguments against the boycott. The selectivity one focusses on discrimination, on treating members of one group worse than others, without adequate justification. This argument, and its associated smear, can be dealt with conclusively by providing a justification for selecting Israel alone for punishment while ignoring far worse malefactors. But whenever I ask for such a justification, that would show why Israel should be treated worse than countries whose records are so much more appalling (eg China and the occupation of Tibet, etc etc) I never get provided with one. I find this very puzzling. I can only assume that no such justification is available, and that whatever reasons the boycotters have for discriminating in this way wouldn’t bear the light of public scrutiny.

29

abb1 05.19.05 at 12:23 pm

Well, China is not occupying Tibet, China annexed Tibet. I’m not saying that it’s good, it’s terrible, but it’s different and it’s better: Tibetans are Chinese citizens like any other Chinese citizens.

Again, where’s the punishment? I just don’t see a refusal to communicate unless certain reasonable conditions are met as a punishment. It’s an example of adequate human behavior.

30

Jonathan Edelstein 05.19.05 at 12:46 pm

Abb1:

The only valid kind of argument against this boycott, IMO, would be arguing that the boycott is counterproductive.

That’s a major argument (and one I’ve made repeatedly in other threads), but hardly the only valid one. For instance, it could be argued that cooperation in the arts and sciences is of intrinsic value to humanity, that it is unethical to preclude cooperation that might result in key technological or cultural advances, that people-to-people communication is an avenue for conflict resolution, that political litmus tests for academics are pernicious, and that innocent academics shouldn’t be held hostage/scapegoated/used as proxy (insert other term as appropriate) for the policies of their government. You may or may not agree with any of these arguments, but all of them can reasonably be made.

All I’m saying is that the ‘selectivity’ argument is not an argument against the merits of the boycott.

I agree up to a point. Regardless of the moral equation, there are perfectly valid tactical reasons why an organization might target Israel for a boycott but not Russia or China. For instance, Israel is smaller than either country, more integrated into international academic networks, more dependent upon international goodwill and more democratically accountable. I could therefore imagine someone arguing (although I would disagree with such argument) that a boycott against Israel would be more painful and more likely to lead to constructive change than one against China or Russia. Different political situations call for different tactics – which is one reason why I reject the equivalence between Israel and South Africa, but I digress.

The selectivity argument still comes into play, however, because out of the universe of human rights violators potentially vulnerable to boycotts, this one is only being directed at Israel. Even if the universe is limited to vulnerable countries that are engaging in military occupations outside their borders, that still leaves Morocco, Armenia, Ethiopia, Nigeria and potentially Turkey (depending on one’s assessment of Turkish vulnerability). If a pro-boycott partisan states that his concern is solely with human rights, or with ending military occupations, then it’s legitimate to ask why boycotts of these countries are not being considered. A claim of impartiality vis-a-vis Israel and other equivalent offenders opens the claimant to proof of partiality.

Russkie, the basic assumption here is that the Israeli government is doing some hideous things.

Whether or not this is the case (and I believe some hideous things are indeed happening), the point is that Israeli policies aren’t occurring in a vacuum, and that the conflict is driven in part by Palestinian maximalism as well as Israeli occupation. That may or may not affect your moral assessment, but it should certainly effect the tactical assessment – if Israel isn’t the sole driver of the conflict and can’t end the it unilaterally with safety, then one-sided pressure isn’t likely to accomplish anything positive.

Boycott is a pretty blunt and radical tool, so it may look like a punishment, but I don’t think they do it with the intent to punish, they do it with the intent to provide an incentive

Negative reinforcement isn’t an “incentive.”

31

Hektor Bim 05.19.05 at 12:49 pm

Abb1,

I’m sure Chinese citizenship is a great comfort to dead Tibetans. I’m sure that Chechens thank their lucky stars for their Russian citizenship when the death squads come to take them away. I know that Sudanese in Darfur are really happy to have their Sudanese citizenship when the janjaweed arrive.

I’d much rather be a non-citizen in the US than a citizen of Sudan living in Darfur. I’m sure you would too.

The issue is human rights, not citizenship. You can be a citizen of a state, and it can still decide to eliminate you, and that citizenship will do nothing for you.

I’ve provided evidence on this thread that despite their Russian citizenship, life is worse overall for Chechens than for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. So explain to me again how life is better for Chechens than Palestinians.

I can’t help you if you continue to believe that mere citizenship will solve all human rights issues.

32

Martin Wisse 05.19.05 at 1:00 pm

And besides, the selectivity argument can be used against any attempt to improve conditions in some country or other. It’s a childish debate ploy.

There are good reasons to single out Israel this time, just like there were good reasons to single out South Africa or Chile earlier.

If you disagree with those reasons or don’t believe Israel is doing any wrong, say so. Don’t hide behind “you’re being selective”.

Incidently, it seems to me the reason so many academics have a bee in their bonnet about this issue and the AUT, is because the boycott was carried by those plebs who aren’t professors yet still AUT members… Is there a bit of a class issue here?

33

Jonathan Edelstein 05.19.05 at 1:01 pm

Luc:

But now a decision in this local association has been taken by less than 60 people out of a membership of about 500 or more, if I have the numbers right […] In what way is the current procedure any better than the previous one?

The main problem with the previous resolution wasn’t the attendance level – it was the fact that only one side was allowed to speak. At the Bristol meeting, partisans of both sides tabled motions, all were free to speak, votes were taken after thorough debate and the final resolution was a compromise. That in itself makes the current procedure better and more representative.

The attendance level at the Bristol meeting isn’t meaningful by itself. Certainly, nobody was prevented from attending, and the pro-boycott side had notice of the meeting and was free to recruit as many participants as it could muster. The anti-boycott faction needn’t answer for its opponents’ lack of support and/or organizational skills.

And they are bound to ignore the result of the discussion at the special meeting according to the motion.

No, they’re only bound to “take no measures… to implement the current national policy” – i.e., the one voted upon at the last general meeting. If the emergency meeting ratifies the boycott after full debate, then it won’t be the “current” policy any more, and the Bristol AUT will be free to reconsider.

34

SoCalJustice 05.19.05 at 1:02 pm

and that the conflict is driven in part by Palestinian maximalism as well as Israeli occupation.

Palestinian maximalism which is in full (and, often sickening: http://gamla.org.il/images/2001/sept/sbarro1.jpg, http://gamla.org.il/images/2001/sept/sbarro2.jpg) display at certain Palesitnian Universities, which are not being targetted for boycott by any members of the AUT.

35

Luc 05.19.05 at 1:05 pm

I can only assume that no such justification is available

It is, but you don’t accept it. And as this “debate” around the AUT boycott has repeatedly shown, there’s little that convinces anyone, one way or the other.

Expressing solidarity with the phrase “Ich bin ein berliner” (paste image of Sue in a Palestinian flag here) gets the Simpsons treatment –

… in another episode of The Simpsons, Abraham Simpson has a flashback in which he hears John F. Kennedy say the phrase “Ich bin ein Berliner”, prompting Abraham to yell “He’s a Nazi!” shortly before tackling Kennedy.

(from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin_ein_Berliner)

36

JR 05.19.05 at 1:06 pm

There are plenty of people on both sides of the issue who, not addressing the issues I’ve raised, seem to think that it’s obvious that a teachers’ union should have a foreign policy- the only issue that seems to engage everyone is what that policy should be. So perhaps I’m wrong. Anyone want to care to tell me why?

37

Jonathan Edelstein 05.19.05 at 1:18 pm

Expressing solidarity with the phrase “Ich bin ein berliner” [is a justification for the boycott]

If the boycott is merely to express political solidarity with the Palestinians rather than to effect practical change, though, shouldn’t it be targeted at the people who are actually implementing Israeli policies? Boycotting Israeli academics to show solidarity with the Palestinians is a bit like showing solidarity for the victims of Enron executives by boycotting the secretaries.

38

abb1 05.19.05 at 1:30 pm

Hektor,
it’s a terrible thing about the Chechens.

Nevertheless it’s nothing but a brutally suppressed separatist movement. We condemn the brutality, of course, and we sympathize with the victims – yet we don’t question the rationale of the Russian government’s effort itself, correct? We denounce the methods, not the purpose. No one is seriously questioning the purpose, as far as know.

Do you understand what I’m saying?

Israel, OTOH, has been illegally occupying 3 million people (not to mention parts of Syria) for 38 years. Anyone can see now – as they are preparing to evacuate Gaza – that this is not the question of survival, the only purpose is expansionism. This is radically different, there is no excuse, no justification.

39

Jonathan Edelstein 05.19.05 at 1:46 pm

we don’t question the rationale of the Russian government’s effort itself, correct? We denounce the methods, not the purpose. No one is seriously questioning the purpose, as far as know.

Actually, quite a few people are. Many of those who don’t subscribe to the Westphalian theory of sovereignty believe that Chechens, Tibetans, West Papuans et. al. are entitled to self-determination. But that’s beside the point, though, because even if countries that militarily occupy foreign soil are uniquely culpable, there are several other than Israel that fall into that category.

As I said above, there may be tactical reasons for singling out Israel and/or Israeli academics. Maybe you believe that the Israeli-Palestinian crisis is more urgent than the others, or that Israel is more likely to respond constructively to a boycott, or that Israeli academics have a different role in state policy than Armenian academics, or some other reason that differentiates Israel from other countries conducting military occupations. But if so, then this reason needs to be articulated. Saying “we’re only humanitarians” or “we only want to end occupation” is just as much a dodge as “you’re being selective.”

40

Hektor Bim 05.19.05 at 1:53 pm

I do in fact question the rationale of the Russian government’s effort. The Chechens have shown that they desire self-determination, and won a war to get it. The Russians wish to prevent it, and are willing to kill as many Chechens as possible to get to this goal. The Russians are determined to crush a perfectly understandable push for self-determination. Just like they shouldn’t have control over Afghanistan, they shouldn’t have control over Chechnya.

Every national group has a right to self-determination, and as far as I can see, the Chechens are exercisizing their right and dying for it.

The concept of self-determination is the only reason the international community is willing to entertain an independent Palestinian state as opposed to a larger Egypt or Syria, by the way.

What do you have against separatist movements, anyway?

41

JR 05.19.05 at 2:14 pm

Okay, I give up. Academics do have a right to their own foreign policy. Also, academics should formulate policy on income taxation, baby care, traffic control, and licensure of alternative medical professionals and should boycott those who disagree with them.

Bye now.

42

abb1 05.19.05 at 2:31 pm

Why, they do have their right to self-determination as an autonomous republic inside the Russian federation, or whatever their status is these days.

What, we have to discuss the merits of various separatist movements now? I hereby declare my half-acre property in Massachusetts an independent state, call it Independent Republic of Abbone. Visit my duty-free coffee shop, good stuff, direct from Amsterdam.

43

Hektor Bim 05.19.05 at 2:36 pm

Jr,

I should have replied earlier. I entirely agree with you, by the way.

44

Russkie 05.19.05 at 2:53 pm

Israel, OTOH, has been illegally occupying 3 million people (not to mention parts of Syria) for 38 years. Anyone can see now – as they are preparing to evacuate Gaza – that this is not the question of survival, the only purpose is expansionism.

Excuse me for saying so, but you should just shut the hell up with this ignorant nonsense.

As you said before, you just “assume” this crap – so don’t pretend that there’s anything considered or rational about it.

45

Hektor Bim 05.19.05 at 3:00 pm

Ah, abb1,

So genocide is ok if done against separatists, but military occupation is a no-no.

So a government can kill as many people as it wants, as long as it annexes the area first. Then it becomes a “separatist conflict”, and different rules apply.

So if Israel annexes the West Bank and then sends out random death squads to kill Palestinians, you are prepared to call off the boycott?

46

abb1 05.19.05 at 3:03 pm

Sure. Chill out, man.

47

abb1 05.19.05 at 3:07 pm

Oh, Hektor, that was for Russkie.

No, it wouldn’t be OK, of course. That would be a different situation that would have to be considered and addressed accordingly. But now we have this situation.

48

Eve Garrard 05.19.05 at 3:58 pm

So annexation is better than occupation – unless Israel does it, in which case we’d have to reconsider? It looks as if the claim that Israel-is-wrong comes first, well before the political principles which are supposed to support that claim.

In any case, I don’t think that an explanation of the selection of Israel for boycott which requires us to believe that the Palestinians are worse off than the Chechens is going to be able to do much justificatory work. That belief is itself in as much need of justification as the original selectivity.

49

Luc 05.19.05 at 8:00 pm

The main problem with the previous resolution wasn’t the attendance level – it was the fact that only one side was allowed to speak

There’s lots of things that people have considered the main problem. In my observation, the main, and by the way legitimate, “procedural” objection, was the outcome. Had a debate taken place of 15 minutes, 1 hour or half a day, and the decision had still been for a boycott, would the action to oppose the decision not been taken? Would those that oppose this boycott stayed silent?

But now that both sides have the time to speak, the debate is stitched up by sending delegates with a mandate. Well at least, given the range of motions they have to vote about, they’ll have to waste some braincells deciding how to vote.

And as the opposition to the motion was already underway well before the previous vote, that Bristol meeting could have been organized before the previous congress.

The argument that that decision wasn’t the real opinion of the AUT membership, but just of a minority, is one that’s featured regularly, also here, in sentences like So far, I haven’t met a single British academic who will admit to supporting the decision … etc.

No, they’re only bound to “take no measures… to implement the current national policy” – i.e., the one voted upon at the last general meeting.

That’s one interpretation, but hypothetically, if no motions are passed in the new meeting, the current policy remains. There’s no reconfirmation or ratifying on the agenda AFAIK.

If the boycott is merely to express political solidarity with the Palestinians rather than to effect practical change, though, shouldn’t it be targeted at the people who are actually implementing Israeli policies? Boycotting Israeli academics to show solidarity with the Palestinians is a bit like showing solidarity for the victims of Enron executives by boycotting the secretaries.

The “Ich bin ein Berliner” phrase was used in a context that involved action, and “practical change”. But it was more an example of over the top rhetoric, as an actual point of debate. Compare the Simpsons line to the gradual arguments that end up labeling Sue a holocaust denier.

As for your actual argument, who to target, if there is any targeting at all, that is a good question. Because who is responsible for the occupation and the settlements? Those that elect the governments that create and execute those policies? Those that function in the military who man the check points and do the fighting? Those that live in the settlements? Those that support the WZO and it’s settlement policies? Etc.

It’s a good question without a simple answer. But in my view there’s a lot of blame to go around.

But for academics it is not unreasonable to target academics, whether through cooperation and discussion, or through boycotts.

50

Dan Simon 05.19.05 at 8:35 pm

There are good reasons to single out Israel this time, just like there were good reasons to single out South Africa or Chile earlier.

By good, I assume you mean, “domestic political”. Unpleasant though the Apartheid and Pinochet regimes were, their depredations were minor compared with those of many, many of their contemporaries. The disproportionate attention paid to them was overwhelmingly a function of domestic political disputes in North America and Western Europe, where the two countries stood as symbolic proxies for capitalism as opposed to socialism, the middle and upper classes as opposed to the working and lower classes, and whites as opposed to blacks and immigrants.

As I’ve said before, similar domestic partisanship is what mainly fuels the virulent anti-Israel sentiment to be found on the European and North American left, where Israel is a stand-in for America and American-style capitalism, as well as the middle-class, the military, traditional religion, and even (ironically, given historical attitudes towards Jews) white or anti-immigrant nativism.

Then again, perhaps you have some alternative theories as to why Israel today–and South Africa and Chile back then–ended up being singled out for such wildly disproportionate opprobrium. If so, I’d be fascinated to hear them.

51

Russkie 05.20.05 at 1:53 am

> Those that support the WZO and it’s settlement policies?

What’s the WZO?? the “World Zionist Organization”??

So yet another “leftist” thinks that there’s some global Jewish conspiracy that’s pulling the strings of Israeli policies…

52

Luc 05.20.05 at 3:46 am

What conspiracy russkie?

http://forward.com/articles/2828

(and you can google a dozen others if you think the forward is a suspect source)

Given that PM Sharon brought this into the public eye, there’s little conspiracy going on there. A bit of feigned ignorance, that’s all.

53

Russkie 05.20.05 at 5:21 am

> Those that support the WZO and it’s [sic] settlement policies?

WZO is a decades-old organization that runs programs in Israel for Jewish youth from overseas. See http://wzo.org.il

> http://forward.com/articles/2828

Here’s a good blog entry on the Sasson report on financing of “illegal outposts” by WZO: http://www.yuppiesofzion.com/archives/001169.php

>Given that PM Sharon brought this into the public
>eye, there’s little conspiracy going on there. A
>bit of feigned ignorance, that’s all.

Huh? Outed by Sharon, but not a conspiracy, just “feigned ignorance”??

Feigned ignorance by whom? Sharon? or by the WZO rank and file quoted in your Forward article?

YOu seem to be looking for reasons to demonize ordinary Israelis. Should Israelis demonize Europeans because the EU financially supported Palestinian terrorism?

54

Luc 05.20.05 at 5:39 am

You fail me here. Where’s the conspiracy?
The WZO has a division that finances settlement construction using Israeli government money.

This leads me to the question whether those that support the WZO have a responsability regarding those settlements. I stated it was a

55

Luc 05.20.05 at 5:50 am

… question without a simple answer.

This stuff got plastered all over the media because Sharon asked for a report about it.
And those involved did show “feigned ignorance”.
Whether in the article I linked to or in your yuppie link –

“Because if socially liberal American Jews were barely financially supporting Jewish organizations before this report came out, their support is going to plummet if they somehow get wind that their Upper East Side dinner parties were helping finance the expansion of the settlements.
Or at least, it would if any of them get to read about the report. But maybe I’m putting too much faith in them, and not enough on the power of denial.”

56

Russkie 05.20.05 at 6:23 am

>The WZO has a division that finances settlement
>construction using Israeli government money.

If you understood the articles, the scandal is that the division financed (past tense) “outposts” that the Israeli gov’t had rendered illegal.

> This leads me to the question whether those that
> support the WZO have a responsability [sic]
> regarding those settlements. I stated it was a
> question without a simple answer

You’re awfully eager to spread the guilt around when it comes to Israelis (and Jews in this case).

Are you similarly concerned with the assignment of responsibility when there are illegal (and far worse) activities by Palestinians, Europeans, or the UN?

57

Luc 05.20.05 at 7:28 am

If you understood the articles, the scandal is that the division financed (past tense) “outposts” that the Israeli gov’t had rendered illegal.

You might be surprised that I’m not that interested what is legal and not in Israel regarding those settlements/outposts in this case. See the ICJ ruling.

I reacted to the following statement:
shouldn’t it be targeted at the people who are actually implementing Israeli policies?

I don’t think this has any relevance to that question anymore. Or to conspiracies.

Let’s call it a day.

58

Russkie 05.20.05 at 8:01 am

>You might be surprised that I’m not that
>interested what is legal and not in Israel
>regarding those settlements/outposts in this case. >See the ICJ ruling.

The ICJ doesn’t “rule” – it advises. This confuses some people – who think that if you take representatives from China and Egypt and give them robes and a wig it somehow makes their statements into something other than expressions of their narrow political interests.

The ICJ advice on the barrier is irrelevant to anything said till now. It almost seems that you are mixing together the standard anti-Israel speeches of the left into an all-purpose stew of contempt.

But notice: if the ICJ had actually applied an objective set of criteria to its case (and shown willingness to apply them in comparable circumstances elsewhere) then it would not so be easy for Israel to dismiss what it says. Ditto for all the anti-Israel resolutions in the various UN bodies.

> Let’s call it a day.

I guess it’s more comfortable for you to go hang out with your friends who think just like you and talk about which Israelis should be punished.

59

Seymour Paine 05.20.05 at 10:41 am

I’ve read a little here and there about the boycott in England. It seems that the English are rather anti-Semitic, as a people. Is that correct? Aren’t English acadmics applying a standard selectively to Jews (or Israelis) isn’t that prima facie evidence of anti-Semitism? Or are there English academic groups seeking to boycott Palestinian scholars because of Palentinian terrorism? Or is it that as a whole, with some small exceptions, the English academia believes in the Palestinian cause (i.e., the elimination of Israel). If English academics had an up or down vote: Eliminate Israel and rid the world of Jews, how would they vote?

60

Jonathan Edelstein 05.20.05 at 11:43 am

In my observation, the main, and by the way legitimate, “procedural” objection, was the outcome.

That’s a substantive objection, not a procedural one. You are of course correct that those opposed to the boycott (as I am) would disagree with the decision even if the debate had been scrupulously fair, and would try to overturn it through political means. However, if the procedure had been valid, I wouldn’t complain about the procedure – in that event, I’d regard the vote as a bad one but a fair one.

Compare the Simpsons line to the gradual arguments that end up labeling Sue a holocaust denier.

All right, point taken. For the record, I don’t agree with that kind of rhetorical tactic; I prefer to oppose arguments on their merits rather than on an ad hominem basis.

But for academics it is not unreasonable to target academics, whether through cooperation and discussion, or through boycotts.

I’m not entirely sure I agree with this – would it be reasonable for cleaning ladies to target cleaning ladies? It seems to me that if academics or anyone else object to the policies of a government, they should direct their objection to those responsible for the policies rather than those in a parallel position within the targeted country. As you say, there’s no simple answer to the question of who is responsible, but I think there’s a burden of proof with respect to non-governmental institutions, especially if such institutions are apolitical. If universities and/or individual academics are to be considered responsible parties, the nature of their responsibility should be clearly spelled out and supported by evidence.

I also think there’s a distinction between cooperation and discussion, which are the ordinary course of business, and extraordinary measures like boycotts. Academics can cooperate and discuss whether or not they agree on political issues, but sanctions require disagreement, and that disagreement should be with the specific people being sanctioned. I’d argue that, except in truly extraordinary cases, sanctions should be targeted at public officials, which is both a more direct form of protest and one that doesn’t sacrifice the benefits of professional cooperation.

61

Alex 05.20.05 at 11:46 am

I think this discussion on the logic behind the boycott and logic behind opposing the boycott became too academic (pun intended). I believe the situation is much simpler.

Political boycotts is an idiotic instrument to effect change. They usually harden the policy one opposes rather than change it in the desired direction. The only acceptable reason for boycott is the mental inability of the boycotter to relate to the boycottee. Sometimes it is just physically difficult to deal with a Nazi, racist, murderer, etc.

For a lot of people, obviously Jews but also many non-Jews, it is physically difficult to deal with antisemites or with members of antisemitic organizations. Since AUT boycott is universally perceived as an antisemitic act, and one can also argue logically that it is, if AUT boycott stays the members of AUT and British academia in general will be effectively boycotted by a large proportion of their colleagues, especially by US scientists. This counter-boycott will not have to be approved on an institutional level, like the AUT boycott of Israel, but will be nevertheless effectively implemented on a personal level.

Repeal the boycott and save yourselves a lot of trouble.

62

abb1 05.20.05 at 2:36 pm

It seems to me that if academics or anyone else object to the policies of a government, they should direct their objection to those responsible for the policies rather than those in a parallel position within the targeted country.

That’s how assassinations work, boycotts are exactly the opposite. Boycotts are supposed to motivate the whole population (or, at least, large/important sectors of the population) of the targeted country, and only indirectly affect those responsible.

Clearly this boycott by itself is not going to change much if anything. But the hope (and fear for some) is that other groups/organizations will join and it’ll grow into something significant. It would be difficult – in the US, for example, boycotting Israel is simply illegal. But, hey, who knows. A modest step is better than nothing.

63

SoCalJustice 05.20.05 at 3:15 pm

in the US, for example, boycotting Israel is simply illegal

Can you find me the part of the U.S. Code that makes an academic boycott by the AAUP or any other American teachers union illegal?

64

abb1 05.20.05 at 3:28 pm

Hey, you’re a lawyer, you tell me. I know there are anti-boycott laws, so why not?

65

SoCalJustice 05.20.05 at 3:35 pm

Because the law does not apply to academic boycotts (or even your personal anti-Israel boycott.)

That’s why not.

You can start your research (if you’re actually interested) here:

22 U.S.C. § 2679
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/22/chapters/38/sections/section_2679c.html

66

Jonathan Edelstein 05.20.05 at 3:35 pm

That’s how assassinations work

That would be a bit over the top for an academic union, though.

67

abb1 05.20.05 at 3:50 pm

SoCalJustice,
I am not a lawyer, but I understand that anti-boycott laws make it illegal for a store clerk to tell me whether a particular piece of merchandise was produced in Israel, so, if this is true (I never tried) – how can you say it doesn’t apply to a personal boycott?

Again, I don’t know anything about this, but your link – is this the only anti-discrimination law that exists?

68

SoCalJustice 05.20.05 at 4:02 pm

Again, I don’t know anything about this, but your link – is this the only anti-discrimination law that exists?

No – that’s why I said “start” your research there.

Go here:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/48cfr652_01.html

And click on Sections 652.225-70 and 652.225-71

I believe what you’re referring to is this:

625.7002(b)

(a) Section 8(a) of the U.S. Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. 2407(a)), prohibits compliance by U.S. persons with any boycott fostered by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States and which is not itself the object of any form of boycott pursuant to United States law or regulation. The Boycott of Israel by Arab League countries is such a boycott, and therefore, the following actions, if taken with intent to comply with, further, or support the Arab League Boycott of Israel, are prohibited activities under the Export Administration Act:

(4) Furnishing information about whether any person has, has had, or proposes to have any business relationship (including a relationship by way of sale, purchase, legal or commercial representation, shipping or other transport, insurance, investment, or supply) with or in the State of Israel, with any business concern organized under the laws of the State of Israel, with any Israeli national or resident, or with any person which is known or believed to be restricted from having any business relationship with or in Israel;

You’re allowed to do all you can to find out whether a product is Israeli made, and then, not by it. The clerk cannot help someone join in the Arab League boycott, though. If you do your own research, you’re free to do whatever you want.

Again, nothing whatsoever in there about academic boycotts.

69

abb1 05.20.05 at 4:14 pm

You’re allowed to do all you can to find out whether a product is Israeli made, and then, not by it.

Thanks for that.

70

SoCalJustice 05.20.05 at 4:17 pm

Whatever abb1,

If you really were serious about boycotting all Israeli products, as an “IT professional,” I hope you enjoy doing your work on an abacus.

71

SoCalJustice 05.20.05 at 4:23 pm

The cell phone was developed in Israel by Motorola-Israel. Motorola built its largest development center worldwide in Israel.

Windows NT software was developed by Microsoft-Israel.

The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel.

Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.

AOL’s instant message program was designed by an Israeli software company.

Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel.

http://www.newsoftheday.com/israel/old/2004_05_02_index.html

I’m sure they’ll miss your business.

72

Noah 05.20.05 at 5:27 pm

For anyone who wonders why the occupation continues today, after 38 years, and settlements continue to expand, just read this thread, most of the answers are there.

BTW, on the issue of selectivity – this is the 8th post related to Israel in less than four weeks; 7 devoted to the AUT boycott, 1 on the Red Cross thing.

What about Sudan, Chechnya, Iran, Kashmir, and Tibet, damnit?!

73

Noah 05.20.05 at 10:08 pm

“This is the second time you’ve asked me for links, and the second time I’ve been able to post them after fooling around with Google for five minutes. Why exactly do you keep asking me to supply links to things you perfectly easily can find on the web yourself?”

Hector Bim — I just scrolled up-thread and noticed that your list of links on Chechnya had been approved. Thanks.

When I googled, all I came up with for 2004-05 was the HRW report – I see your other links are earlier. And no, this was the first time I asked you to provide links on anything.

Comments on this entry are closed.